Whose Bloodied right hand palm print was left on pages of bible?

[lookout]

Thanks NN . Of course I am aware that it might turn into a big fat zero but that's just my natural pessimism  X

Never mind,Caroline,,,pessimism is a safety valve. 

[maggie]

You don't think they were obsessives?   

I definitely think they were extremely obsessive  NN.  I was being sarcastic. 

[Caroline R]

Never mind,Caroline,,,pessimism is a safety valve. 

It certainly is Lookout - especially here!! 

[killingeve]

I'm fine thank you Ms N, hope you are too.

Yes I have the Lomax book too, see my post #92.

Miss Bridget

I don't have the Lomax book as I've heard it's very biased towards JB.  It's from the CoA doc:

517.   Mr Turner's further ground for opposing the admission of this evidence was that it was not a matter that could be fully considered without placing it against many other aspects of the evidence called at trial, such as the pathologist's evidence and the evidence as to how the crime scene may have been altered between the moment when the farmhouse was entered and the taking of the photographs. He argued that unlike a distinct piece of evidence such as the DNA evidence in Hanratty, it was wholly impossible for the court to gauge the impact that this evidence might have had on the jury without the court being in a position to hear all these other aspects of the evidence that were before the jury. He pointed to a number of specific areas in which he argued that the evidence of Mr Ismail was capable of attack by reference to other evidence in the case. The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print. He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:

"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "

[killingeve]

I definitely think they were extremely obsessive  NN.  I was being sarcastic. 

Phew that's a relief 

[Bridget]

Miss Bridget

I don't have the Lomax book as I've heard it's very biased towards JB.  It's from the CoA doc:

517.   Mr Turner's further ground for opposing the admission of this evidence was that it was not a matter that could be fully considered without placing it against many other aspects of the evidence called at trial, such as the pathologist's evidence and the evidence as to how the crime scene may have been altered between the moment when the farmhouse was entered and the taking of the photographs. He argued that unlike a distinct piece of evidence such as the DNA evidence in Hanratty, it was wholly impossible for the court to gauge the impact that this evidence might have had on the jury without the court being in a position to hear all these other aspects of the evidence that were before the jury. He pointed to a number of specific areas in which he argued that the evidence of Mr Ismail was capable of attack by reference to other evidence in the case. The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print. He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:

"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "

Yes, so if we assume that by "palm prints" he means what we are calling finger marks, it was a note which he later clarified in his final report as being a transfer from the right wrist. This is why I said it would be nice to see all of the notes - so that the remark can be seen in context.

Changing the subject slightly, one of the court exhibits is listed as "photos of Sheila Caffell's hands". It'd be good to see those wouldn't it?

[Caroline R]

Yes, so if we assume that by "palm prints" he means what we are calling finger marks, it was a note which he later clarified in his final report as being a transfer from the right wrist. This is why I said it would be nice to see all of the notes - so that the remark can be seen in context.

Changing the subject slightly, one of the court exhibits is listed as "photos of Sheila Caffell's hands". It'd be good to see those wouldn't it?

Yes it would but we wouldn't know if they have been swabbed prior to or after the pictures were taken!!

[Jane]

I really can't go with Steve's suggestions of June and Sheila studying the bible together. 

If there was a bloodied print in the black bible which was in the spare room and also where Sheila was saying well that's very interesting imo.
 
Wonder where that bible was found? 

The blue bible was always on June's bedside table so would have been accessible to Sheila when in the main bedroom before she died...... 

If we knew for sure it was Sheila's handprint then we could to assume that Sheila was looking at the bible after she had shot everyone....maybe that is why she killed herself in that room? 
If she had killed in a frenzy and state of psychosis would she be aware of the twins or anyone else? would she even remember? 
Would she have felt any need to lie down with the twins if she had travelled that far in her head???

I feel certain that not many of us can, Maggie :D however, I have asked myself the same questions as you.  Did she kill her children to prevent them from, in her disordered mind, being taken from her. Did she kill them because yet again, and possibly because her meds were out of balance, she was having thoughts about them attacking and raping her because they are the devil's children OR was she even aware that they were her children. She clearly can't be capable of psychotic and rational behaviours at the same time.

[Caroline R]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2489.msg76621.html#msg76621

This is another interesting old thread about the bibles.

Hi Maggie, this MUST be the same one and Mike said he saw the picture of it and independently states that it is indeed a hand print!!

Mike? You say it's not the same bible - are you sure?

[killingeve]

Yes, so if we assume that by "palm prints" he means what we are calling finger marks, it was a note which he later clarified in his final report as being a transfer from the right wrist. This is why I said it would be nice to see all of the notes - so that the remark can be seen in context.

Changing the subject slightly, one of the court exhibits is listed as "photos of Sheila Caffell's hands". It'd be good to see those wouldn't it?

Miss Bridget

How you love that word context    Context is obviously incredibly important but I can't help thinking when you make reference to it it's to skew the point to your view 

Any chance of access to the final report and photo, anyone?

[Bridget]

Yes it would but we wouldn't know if they have been swabbed prior to or after the pictures were taken!!

Actually I think we'd stand a fair chance, swabbing would not remove all of the blood if there was enough to create a palm print like that, and if they were taken after the body was washed the blood on the wrist and base of thumb would be absent.

[Bridget]

Miss Bridget

How you love that word context    Context is obviously incredibly important but I can't help thinking when you make reference to it it's to skew the point to your view 

Any chance of access to the final report and photo, anyone?

Well there's a reason for that Ms N, it's a tactic I see used here all the time to try to make things appear to be something which they are not (or are not necessarily). I prefer to see as much of the picture as possible before coming to a conclusion.

[Alias]

Hi Maggie, this MUST be the same one and Mike said he saw the picture of it and independently states that it is indeed a hand print!!

Mike? You say it's not the same bible - are you sure?

I was thinking the same. Two bibles with bloodied handprints is unlikely.

[lookout]

I remember vividly,the other bible,,because it was opened,showing a picture on the right hand side. Pity I can't remember what the picture is,,or where I saw it,,but it was about a year ago. What I didn't see were any blood prints on that particular page.

[maggie]

Hi Maggie, this MUST be the same one and Mike said he saw the picture of it and independently states that it is indeed a hand print!!

Mike? You say it's not the same bible - are you sure?

I have no idea Caroline, I just put the link up because it's all part of the same discussion.
It's hard to believe there were two but if the black one was the one from her bedroom it is interesting.